John, Spencer, thanks for your comments. Although I agree that the solution to this kind of protocol-related problems is not in the scope of bliss (in fact, when looking at the reason why this broken message flow exists at all, you will see that the cause is more on the policy side since this is the major reason why those SBCs behave the way I described), I also think that when describing the interaction between distinct devices, the caveats should at least be mentioned.
The reason why I brought this into the ACH discussion is that in "my" network, most problems that come with forking are (1) a result of performing ACH and (2) occur on the message upstream as illustrated in my example. Thanks, Olaf _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
